Jewish History
Overview of the Topic
The topic covered by the article by Milton Brown is the “Protocols” trial. This was a crucial event in the history of Zionism. The trial involved a case in which the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” book was evaluated for its authenticity by a Berne court. This is the book that supporters of Hitler were using to support the discrimination and brutality against the Jews. The topic of the “Protocols” trial is related to the issue of the fall of Hitlerism that characterized the post First World War era. The actions happening in Europe played a crucial role in fueling the expansion of Zionism. For instance, Adolf Hitler had promoted the publishing of the Protocols which is a book justifying the discrimination against Jews (Brown). This paper explores the coverage of the topic of the “Protocols” trial by an article derived from National Library of Israel’s Historical Jewish Press website, especially its political orientation in addressing the issue in question.
A Summary of the Article’s Coverage of the Topic
The “Protocols” trial was a very important event as far as the rise of Zionism was concerned. The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was a publication supported by Hitler that was central to Nazi propaganda against the Jews. In the article by Brown, a court in Berne declared the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” a forgery. The case in question was filed in the Switzerland court against the Swiss Nazis for their role in encouraging and propagating the spread of the “Protocols.” The court was faced with three questions pertaining to the authenticity and legality of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” One of the questions was whether or not the “Protocols” was genuine or forged (Brown). This question was based on the argument by the pro-Hitler’s that the “Protocols” book was a genuine publications by the Jewish in which the latter explored their intentions to dominant the world. At the same time, the court was expected to answer the question was whether or not the “Protocols” was a literacy theft or a plagiarized copy. The last question was whether or not the publications qualified to be classified as an obscene literature (Brown). Ordinarily, obscene literature tends to be illegalized in many jurisdictions.
The court’s ruling was a major blow to the Nazi’s propaganda. The verdict of the court in Berne was a major blow to the Nazis in Switzerland as well as their counterparts from the rest of the world (Brown). At the same time, the verdict served to exonerate the Jews who had been accused of coming up with a plot to dominant the world. The article by Brown also explores the other events occurring at the same time as the “Protocols” trial. One of these events involves the death and burial of Marshal Pilsudski, a Poland’s dictator. The other event pertains to the filling of a case against the administrators of Free City by the Jews of Danzig pertaining to the violation of the requirements of the League of Nations as far as the treatment of national minority are concerned.
How the Orientation Adopted by the Publishing Agent Influence the Coverage of the Topic in Question
The article by Brown has taken a political approach to the study of the “Protocols” trial. It explores the political implications of the trial especially to the activities of the Jews living in the diaspora. For example, it explores the implications of the death of the Marshal Pilsudski on the welfare of the Jews living in Poland. Pilsudski was a Poland’s dictator who even though was not a pro-Jewish, his influence and strength protected Jews from the wrath of the anti-Semites (Brown). Apart from exploring what happened during the “Protocols” trial Brown went ahead to describes several events occurring in different parts of the world and which pertains to the spirit of Zionism. Brown does not attempt to explain the significances of the other events covered by his article relates to the “Protocols” trial. Thus, Brown article in question leaves the task of finding the finding correlation between the different events in his article to his audiences. Evidently, Brown thinks that the “Protocols” trial was part of a wider range of events aimed at bringing to an end the Nazi’s propaganda while promoting the growth of Zionism. The article by Brown carries the spirit of Zionism. In his article, Brown does nothing more than just praising the Jews for their achievements in convincing the Swiss court that “The Protocols” was a forgery. Brown made a deliberate decision to include several events unrelated to the “Protocols” trial in his article. For instance, what was happening in the Swiss Court when the “Protocols” was on trial was unrelated to the death and burial of the Marshal Pilsudski, the Poland’s dictator. At the same time, the occurrences in Poland were unrelated to the David Ben-Gurion’s arrival in New York (Brown). However, all these events were connected in way which involves Brown’s intention to demonstrate the idea that Zionism was on the rise across the world.
At the same time, it is highly likely that Brown is exaggerating the significance of the events marking the fall of Hitlerism. For instance, Brown argues that Jewish factories and stores were all closed on the day that Poland’s dictator Marshal Pilsudski. He adds that Polish government received condolences from Jewish and Jewish organizations from across the globe (Brown). At the same time, Brown reports about the reactions of the Nazi to the action of the Jews portioning the League of Nations in regard to their discrimination. According to Brown, Herr Forster who is a Nazi leader of Danzig believed that the Jews ware planning a war against Germany. For Brown, the statement by Foster were not only inflammatory but were also akin to open incitement against the Jews.
According to Brown, three experts testified to the authenticity of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” Two of these experts confirmed that the “Protocols” was not authentic. More importantly, Brown is biased when providing details and arguments of the third expert who did not agree with his colleagues pertaining to the authenticity and genuineness of the “Protocols.” Brown states that the Nazi expert was unable to prove that the “Protocols” was genuine. At the same time, the entire Nazi expert’s testament was founded on the premise that the “Protocols” had never been provided to be fake (Brown). More importantly, the diction that Brown uses to describe the Nazi expert shows that he may be biased against the latter when describing the events that occurred during the “Protocols” trial. For instance, Brown refers to Col. Freischhauer as the Nazi “expert.” This statement suggests that Brown does not think that Col. Freischhauer deserve to be referred to as an expert. Besides, the quotation serves to show the author’s bias towards Freischhauer. Evidently, Brown does not intend to honestly represent the opinions of those opposed to the Jews.
Thus, Brown is not interested in publishing any information that questions the Jews’ innocence. Besides, Brown thinks that providing more details of one of the expert who testified in the “Protocols” trial will help further advance his goal which is to portray the Jews as innocent. One of the experts in the “Protocols” trial was Dr. Loosli and he was recruited by the court that heard the case under review (Brown). The provision of more details about Dr. Loosli by Brown is not accidental but a deliberate strategy to enhance the level of credibility of the findings of the court that held the “Protocols” trial. Having a court-sourced expert supports the arguments of the Jews who had filed the cases that resulted in the” Protocols” trial was a testament to the innocence of the Jews.
At the same time, Brown demonstrates that Jews are law abiding individuals by including the story of how the case filed in the League of Nations in his article. According to Brown, the Jews of Danzig have filed a legal caused against the administration of the Free Town for violating the stipulations of the League of Nations regarding the treatment of national minorities. Just like the “Protocols” trial, the case filed at the Leagues of Nations serves to act as a testament to the Jews’ plight at the hands of the anti-Semites. In his article, Brown confirms that it is the Jews that filed the court case to have the “Protocols” declared a forgery. Jews could have opted for other options of proving their innocence. However, they chose to follow the rule of the law to fight their tormentors. On this note, the article in question confirms that the filing of the case against the Nazi supporters was not necessary. According to Brown, the case filed in Berne confirmed what many have always known about the legend propagated by the Czarist Secret Political Police regarding the plan by the Jews of dominating the earth. Thus, the ruling by the Berne court was meant to provide a legal proclamation of the Jews’ innocence.
In conclusion, the article under review explores the outcomes of the trial in which the authenticity and genuineness of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” which is a book used by the Nazi supporters to justify their cause was evaluated. The trial ended up in a Berne court declaring the “Protocols” to be a forgery. However, it is evident that the article under review is not interested in correctly reporting about the “Protocols” trial. Instead, the article uses the trial to convey the messages pertaining to the growth of Zionism. Also, the article serves to exonerate the Jews against their tormenters, to portray the former as law-abiding citizens, and to depict the Zionism movement as unstoppable.
Works Cited
Brown, Milton. The “Protocols” trial. The Week in Review, 23 May. 1935. http://www.jpress.nli.org.il/Olive/APA/NLI/?action=search&text=Rise%20of%20Hitler#panel=document